Page 35 [35]
ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHY 33
The best-known work in 20"-century environmentalist literature is arguably
Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962). Carson’s claim that industrial agriculture
would lead to the disappearance of birds is obviously not only about birds, but
also about humans, their attitude to nature, and the close interrelation between
the health of humans and that of nature. The academic literature acknowledges
Silent Spring as the book which profoundly understood and made clear the existence
and meaning of the ecological crisis, and which provided great motivation for
action (see Guha 2000).
Similarly influential was Garrett Hardin’s parable about the tragedy of the
commons (Hardin 1968; discussed in detail in the chapter The Tragedy and Comedy
of the Commons by Andras Takacs-Sdnta), as was The Limits to Growth (1972) by
Donella Meadows and her colleagues. Both books discuss the dangers of
overpopulation and the depletion of natural resources.
Among the endeavors which led to ecophilosophy, a prominent motivation was
the animal rights movement, and its philosophical and ethical foundations. The
idea that animals are beings capable of feelings and suffering is important to the
animal rights framework.’ As concluded by Australian philosopher Peter Singer
— perhaps the best-known elaborator of the philosophical and ethical foundations
of animal rights — the instrumental, utilitarian notion of animal life is culturally
ingrained; changing this deeply ingrained bias requires the abilities of selflessness
and empathy. Animals cannot protest against their mistreatment, or for their rights,
so we must take action on their behalf (Singer 1974). This idea obviously reflects
the first principle of ecophilosophy: nature is not merely a thing over which humans
have exclusive and omnipotent domination, but rather it has value in its own right,
which human beings have a moral responsibility to protect.
Certainly one of the most radical environmental philosophical theses of the
20% century is the Gaia theory of the English medical doctor, researcher,
biophysicist and inventor James Lovelock (1919-2022), who conducted an
extremely broad range of investigations. One was an analysis of the atmosphere
which helped ascertain whether life is possible on other planets. Upon NASA’s
request, he studied the possibilities of life on Mars in the 1960s. During these
years, he elaborated his famous Gaia hypothesis (Lovelock 1979). It boils down
to the idea that planet Earth is a “living organism” capable of controlling and
regenerating itself, all its animate and inanimate elements constituting a tightly
interrelated system. Such a holistic interpretation of the biosphere was already
present in several natural and world religions (Goddess Bhumi in Hinduism),
similarly to Greek mythology from which comes the name Gaia (“Earth Goddess”
in Greek). Lovelock held that the earth was capable of recovering from disasters
of a certain magnitude. This ability relies on a strong immune system — by which
he meant microorganisms, tropical forests, and the biosphere of the continental
shelves. In the works of his old age, he became increasingly more pessimistic,
seeing man as an environment-transforming creature whose impact can no longer
be offset by the rest of the elements of nature. The equilibrium of the Earth
becomes upset and an ecological crisis evolves, which eventually leads to the
extinction of all life on Earth, including humankind.
> See the question of the 19th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham: ,,The question is not, Can
they reason? nor Can they talk? but rather Can they suffer?” (cited in Hubbell — Ryan 2022: 117).